EHRC IBF MainReport Acc

8/20/2019 EHRC IBF MainReport Acc

1/137

Is Britain

Fairer?The state of equality and

human rights 2015


2/137

Is Britain Fairer?The state of equality and human rights 2015

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 12 of the Equality Act 2006as amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013


3/137

© Equality and Human Rights Commission 2015

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0

except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/

open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National

Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain

permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications.

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us [email protected].

Print ISBN 9781474119832

Web ISBN 9781474119849

ID SGD008103 10/15

Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum.

Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s

Stationery Office.

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3mailto:[email protected]://www.gov.uk/government/publicationsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.gov.uk/government/publicationshttp://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3


4/137

About this publication

What is the purpose of this publication?

Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and

human rights 2015 is the Equality and Human

Rights Commission’s statutory five-yearly

report on equality and human rights progress

in England, Scotland and Wales.

In 2010, the Commission produced its first

progress report on equality, entitled How

Fair is Britain? A separate human rights

progress report, the Human Rights Review ,

was published in 2012. Is Britain Fairer? is

the Commission’s follow-up report on both

equality and human rights.

This report outlines our findings and sets out

the challenges for the future.

Who is it for?

This report is intended for policy makers and

influencers across all sectors.

What is inside?

The report includes:

• an executive summary

• the legal framework• context

• key findings related to:

– education and learning

– work, income and the economy

– health and care

– justice, security and the right to life

– the individual and society

• the most significant areas requiring

improvement.

The collected evidence, details of the review

methodology and its context, a technical

appendix and data tables have been

published separately, and are available at

www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer .

When was it published?

The report was published in October 2015.

Why did the Commission produce

the report?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

promotes and enforces the laws that protect

our rights to fairness, dignity and respect. As

part of its duties, the Commission provides

Parliament and the nation with periodicreports on equality and human rights progress

in England, Scotland and Wales.

What formats are available?

The full report is available in PDF and

Microsoft Word formats in English. An

executive summary of the report is available

in English (PDF and Word), Welsh (PDF

and Word), Easy Read (PDF) and BritishSign Language (digital video) formats.

All of the above may be found at

www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer .

iiiwww.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairerhttp://www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer


5/137

Contents

Acknowledgements viAcronyms vii

Executive summary 1

1. Introduction 9

2. Legal framework 13

2.1 Human rights 14

2.2 Equality Act 2010 16

3. Context 17

4. Education and learning 21

4.1 Educational attainment for children and young people 23

4.2 Vulnerable children 25

4.3 Exclusions from school 29

4.4 Bullying 30

4.5 Post-16 participation in education, employment or training 30

4.6 Access to further education and lifelong learning 31

4.7 Access to higher education 32

5. Work, income and the economy 33

5.1 Forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking 35

5.2 Employment and unemployment 365.3 Pay 40

5.4 Housing 44

5.5 Poverty 45

5.6 Access to childcare 48

6. Health and care 49

6.1 Health status 51

6.2 Premature death 52

6.3 Access to healthcare 54

6.4 Quality of health and social care 60

7. Justice, security and the right to life 65

7.1 Crime 67

7.2 Fairness in the justice system 73

7.3 Detention and custody 77

8. The individual and society 83

8.1 Personal, family and social life 85

8.2 Political and civil participation 85

9. Most significant areas requiring improvement 97

Bibliography 103

Glossary 126

vwww.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer


6/137

Acknowledgements

vi

A very wide range of people from a greatnumber of institutions have helped realise this

report. Without their assistance this review

would not have been possible, although

responsibility for the analysis and its accuracy

remains with the Commission.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude

to the Is Britain Fairer (IBF) Commissioner

Working Group (Ann Beynon, Chris Holmes,

Kaliani Lyle, Lorna McGregor, Sarah Veale

and Swaran Singh) for their continuous

support and guidance throughout this

process.

Our thanks also go to the Is Britain Fairer?

domain owners (Andrew Nocon, Chris

Thoung, Gwen Oliver, Hazel Wardrop, Janna

Miletzki, Liz Speed, Richard Keyte, Rosanna

Mann and Verena Brähler) and the rest of

the IBF team (Colin Douglas, David Sparrow,

Gregory Crouch, Helen Norman,Jennifer Dunne, Josh Scherzer, Karen Hurrell,

Marc Verlot, Maxine Taylor, Preeti Kathrecha,

Rana Ranjit, Sarah Munro and Sonia Carrera).

We would also like to acknowledge the

ongoing contribution of those working in other

teams in the Commission, especially the IBF

domain Working Groups, Communications,

Legal, Treaty Monitoring, Scotland, Wales and

the Senior Management Team.

We would also like to thank the report writers

Clare Collins and Jonathan Bashford.

We are indebted to the following organisations,which have supported us with data collection

and analysis:

• CASE, London School of Economics and

Political Science: Eleni Karagiannaki, Ellie

Suh, Tania Burchardt, Polly Vizard

• Cicely Saunders Institute: Joanna Davies,

Jonathan Koffman

• Crucible Centre for Human Rights

Research, University of Roehampton:Harriet Hoffler, Katie Boyle, Michele Lamb

• Independent Social Research Ltd: Carola

Groom, Nick Coleman, Wendy Sykes

• University of Reading: Antonia Fernandez,

Giovanni Razzu

We would like to thank the government

departments and devolved governments listed

below for commenting on our analysis:

• Department for Business, Innovationand Skills

• Department for Communities and

Local Government

• Department for Culture, Media and Sport

• Department for Education

• Department for Work and Pensions

• Department of Health

• Government Equalities Office

• HM Treasury

• Home Office

• Ministry of Justice

• Scottish Government

• Welsh Government

We are very grateful to all those who

contributed to this review through a range of

consultation events and discussions. A full list

of stakeholders can be found on our website

(see below).

www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer


7/137


8/137

viii

Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights 2015


NGO Non-governmental organisationNHS National Health Service

ONS Office for National Statistics

RCGP Royal College of General Practitioners

S4 Fourth year of secondary schooling in Scotland

SCJS Scottish Crime and Justice Survey

SEN Special educational needs

SHQS Scottish Housing Quality Standard

SHRC Scottish Human Rights Commission

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Council

VSH Virtual School Head

WAMs Welsh Assembly Members

ZHC Zero-hours contract


9/137

Executive summary

1www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer


10/137

2



The Equality Act 2006 gave the Equality

and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)

the duty to report regularly on the extent

to which equality and human rights are

improving in Britain. We published Howfair is Britain? (a review of equality) in

2010, followed by the Human Rights

Review in 2012.

This, in 2015, is our first report on progress.

We hope that this report will be of value to

policy makers and influencers across all

sectors. Our purpose is to report our findings,

set out the challenges for the future, and invite

those who have the statutory responsibilitiesor an interest in these areas to address the

issues by identifying and implementing the

necessary solutions. We do not speculate on

the impact of proposed future legislative or

policy changes, nor do we try to explain the

causes of differences, or set policy solutions.

We have gathered data and evidence based

around 10 domains: education; standard of

living; productive and valued activities; health;

life; physical security; legal security; individual,family and social life; identity, expression and

self-respect; and participation, influence and

voice. Within each of these domains, there is

a set of indicators and measures that we have

used in order to evaluate progress. Produced

in parallel with this report are 10 detailed

evidence papers (one for each domain),

available on our website.

When deciding what (from the 10 evidence

papers) to include in this report, we used

three criteria:

• the degree to which there has been change

over time

• the proportion of the specific population

group that the issue affects, and

• the scale of impact on life chances.

The quantitative evidence we used draws

from major surveys and administrative data

compiled by public bodies. Given the time lag

between gathering the data and analysing and

checking it, most of our core quantitative datacovers the period from 2008 to 2013. This

has been supplemented by some more recent

data drawn from other published analysis that

meets our strict criteria. The qualitative data

we used is more recent and includes reports

by inspectorates and regulators, international

organisations, parliamentary committees, the

UK and devolved governments, and non-

governmental organisations (NGOs).

The first three chapters of the report set outthe introduction (Chapter 1), the equality and

human rights legal framework (Chapter 2),

and the economic and demographic context

(Chapter 3). The subsequent five chapters set

out our key findings, as summarised below.


11/137

3

Executive summary

Education and learning (Chapter 4)

Areas of progress over the review period

include:

• general improvements in educational

attainment in schools; in England,

a narrowing of the attainment gap between

White pupils and Pakistani/Bangladeshi

and African/Caribbean/Black pupils

• more effective use of pupil premium funds

• good educational outcomes in secure

training centres

• rising levels of participation of 16–18 year

olds in education and training, and

• falling percentages of men and women

with no qualifications of any kind.

Challenges include:

• some persistent and in some cases

widening educational attainment gaps

(for example, among Gypsy and Traveller

pupils, children from poorer backgrounds

and particularly White boys, children with

special educational needs and children in

the care system); within the context of an

overall fall, higher exclusion rates for somechildren (for example, children with special

educational needs)

• higher rates of bullying carried out

against some children (for example,

disabled children and lesbian, gay and

bisexual children)

• lower participation of disabled young

people in education, employment

and training• women were more likely to have no

qualifications than men, in contrast with the

situation in higher education, where women

more than closed the gap with men,1 and

• while more Black pupils in England

went on to study at a higher education

institution, they were less likely than

White, mixed and Asian pupils to go

to higher-ranked institutions.

1 In this context, a qualification covers: academic qualifications from GCSE (or equivalent) and above; vocational

qualifications; and other awards, certificates and diplomas at any level. An individual with no qualifications holdsnone of these.



12/137

4



Work, income and the economy

(Chapter 5)Areas of progress include:

• increasing recognition (in, for example,

the Modern Slavery Act 2015) of the

human rights violations arising as a result

of trafficking, forced labour, servitude

and exploitation

• a narrowing of the gender gap in

employment rates

• a voluntary target for the FTSE 100 of 25%

female board representation was met, and

• in England, fewer adults and children

lived in substandard accommodation;

homelessness in Wales and Scotland fell.

Challenges include:

• a rise in reported trafficking (and an

increase in the proportion of victims who

were UK nationals)• a lower overall employment rate2

• men were more likely to be unemployed

than women, but women were more likely

to be in part-time work; the numbers of

women in part-time work who wanted to be

in full-time work increased

• women and people from some ethnic

minorities remained less likely to be in both

executive and non-executive directorships• 16–24 year olds had the lowest

employment rates, and the employment

gap between the oldest and the youngest

age groups increased;3 unemployment

rates increased for disabled people;4

unemployment rates were significantly

higher for ethnic minorities; Pakistani/

Bangladeshi women were less than half

as likely to be employed compared with

average female employment rates; Muslims

experienced the highest unemploymentrates, lowest employment rates and

lowest (and decreasing) hourly pay rates

over the period

• all age groups below the age of 55

experienced significant reductions in

average hourly pay, with the biggest

declines in the younger age groups; there

were persistent gender pay gaps among

graduates; employment and earnings

premiums for training and qualificationsamong graduates were higher for men

than for women; some ethnic minorities

and disabled people experienced greater

declines in average pay, and

• poverty rates were higher for children in

households headed by someone from

an ethnic minority; material deprivation

for disabled people above the poverty

level increased and the gap between

disabled and non-disabled people

of working age widened.

2 Employment rate: the number of people in employment as a percentage of the population (our analysis uses theworking age population, aged 16–64).3 Increases in young people’s participation in full-time education only explain some of the falls in employmentand increases in unemployment. Even accounting for this increased participation, the employment rate for youngpeople has fallen and the unemployment rate risen over the review period.4 Unemployment rate: the number of people not currently in a job as a percentage of the ‘economically active

population’ (those who are able to work and have adequate availability to work; this does not include those notworking through sickness, disability or because they are studying).


13/137

5

Executive summary

Health and care (Chapter 6)

Areas of progress include:

• a narrowing of the gender gap in

life expectancy

• a fall in the infant mortality rate in England

and Wales for White, Pakistani/Bangladeshi

and African/Caribbean children

• a decrease in the proportion of men and

women who currently smoke in England,

and in men who exceed low-risk drinking

guidelines

• a decrease in the suicide rate in Scotland

(although the overall rate in Scotland

remained higher than in England and

Wales), and

• in England and Wales, substantial funding

available for psychological therapies;

Scotland was the first country in Britain

to introduce a target to ensure fasteraccess to psychological therapies; positive

developments in the availability of high-

quality mental health care.

Challenges include:

• self-reported health status for some

people with specific characteristics (for

example, Gypsies and Travellers and

disabled people) was worse (in the 2011

Census); lower life expectancy for peoplewith serious mental illness or a learning

disability, Gypsies and Travellers and

homeless people

• increased suicide rate in England and

Wales, resulting in a widening of the gap

between men and women, with

middle-aged men particularly at risk

• worse end of life outcomes for

people in more disadvantagedsocioeconomic positions

• concerns about access to palliative care for

children with cancer

• increased risk of poor mental health among

adults in England, with high risk for people

identifying as gay/lesbian/bisexual/other;

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British

people had the highest rate of contact

with specialist mental health services; and

Black people were more likely to have beencompulsorily detained under the Mental

Health Act 1983 as part of an inpatient stay

in a mental health unit; serious concerns

about access to mental health services for

children and young people; care of prisoners

with mental health needs was inconsistent

across establishments

• increased number of people in England

with health problems requiring both health

and social care and with ‘complex health

needs’, within a context of an overall fall in

social care provision

• people with learning disabilities and/or

autism placed in inappropriate settings for

too long and a long distance from their

family and home

• some people – for example, transgender

people and people from migrant

communities – experienced problemsaccessing healthcare services, and

• legal safeguards provided by the Human

Rights Act 1998 to prevent inhuman or

degrading treatment were not as widely

used as they should have been; a number

of inquiries highlighted serious flaws (and

sometimes abuse) in the care of vulnerable

patients, such as those with learning

disabilities, older people and patients

with dementia.



14/137

6



Justice, security and the right to life


• a fall in several serious crimes affecting

personal safety and the right to life across

or in parts of Britain, and

• a number of significant legislative reforms

and policy initiatives, including an increase

in the volume of referrals from the police of

‘honour-based’ violence-related offences

for prosecution; increased legal protection

for 17 year olds in police custody and

increases in the number of applications

for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards;

a strengthened procedural obligation to

investigate any deaths for which the State

may have a degree of responsibility; and

the setting of international human rights

standards for the treatment of women

prisoners, which were incorporated into the

regulatory inspection framework.

Challenges include:

• a rising incidence of Islamophobic and anti-

Semitic hate crime

• serious issues in relation to child sexual

abuse and exploitation in England and

Wales

• flaws in the police response to domestic

abuse and in the use of stop and search

powers

• the potential impact of legal aid reforms

in England and Wales on the access

of vulnerable individuals to civil and

family justice

• serious concerns were expressed

by regulators about the operation of

safeguards to protect people from being

unlawfully deprived of their liberty across

Britain, and about the use of restraintaffecting detained individuals in health,

care and detention settings

• the Home Secretary announced an

independent review of deaths and serious

incidents in police custody in England and

Wales. There have been 133 deaths during

or following police custody in England and

Wales between 2007/08 and 2014/15,

and 444 apparent suicides following

police custody.

• concerns voiced by regulators about

overcrowding in prisons across Britain,

rising violence in some men’s prisons in

England and Wales, and the treatment

of children and torture victims subject to

immigration controls, and

• the lack of an immigration detention time

limit in the UK remains in contrast to other

European Union member countries.


15/137

7

Executive summary

The individual and society


• the introduction of equal marriage

legislation across Britain; a continued

rise in public acceptance of lesbian, gay

and bisexual people across Britain; and

evidence of decreased stigma around

mental health in England and Wales

• clarification by case law of the capacity

of people with learning disabilities to make

their own decisions about relationships,

and the freedom of individuals to express

their religion or beliefs

• a number of important changes to the

legal framework, including new duties and

responsibilities given to local authorities

in England that affect the care and support

of adults, and new legislation across Britain

extending the support available to youngpeople leaving the care system

• the creation of new criminal offences

relating to forced marriage, emotional

and financial domestic abuse and

controlling or coercive behaviour

• the strengthening of the Information

Commissioner’s powers to regulate

the Data Protection Act 1998

• legislation introduced to encourage

participation in civil society across Britain

• improvements in the diversity of the UK

Parliament following the 2015 general

election; though the gender balance

remains better in the Scottish Parliament

and National Assembly for Wales, and

• an increase in Scotland of political

participation, including by young people,

and the proportion of people perceiving

that they can influence local decisions.

Challenges include:

• a rise in public unease about the use of

people’s personal data by organisations,

after a number of cases of loss/misuse

• placements far from home being allocated

to people with learning disabilities, children

in custody and children in care, which

affect their access to social networks

(as do reductions in public transport)

• bias/hostility continued to be experienced

by disabled people, Gypsies, Roma

and Travellers, transgender people

and immigrants

• the political under-representation of young

people, women and people from some

ethnic minorities persisted

• young people and those from some

ethnic minorities remained less likely tobe politically active; compared with those

in managerial and professional groups,

all other sub-groups were also less

politically active

• the blanket ban on prisoners voting

remained in place, in violation of

Convention rights

• there were concerns about covert police

operations and intrusive surveillance of

protests, and

• disabled people, some ethnic minorities

and people aged 75 and over were less

likely than others to perceive that they

could influence local decisions.



16/137

8



Conclusion

We conclude with Chapter 9, which draws

on the evidence in the previous chapters

and sets out eight key equality and human

rights challenges for Great Britain over the

coming years:

1. Improve the evidence and the ability

to assess how fair society is.

2. Raise standards and close attainmentgaps in education.

3. Encourage fair recruitment, development

and reward in employment.

4. Support improved living conditions

in cohesive communities.

5. Encourage democratic participation

and ensure access to justice.

6. Improve access to mental health servicesand support for those experiencing (or at

risk of experiencing) poor mental health.

7. Prevent abuse, neglect and ill-treatment

in care and detention.

8. Tackle targeted harassment and abuse

of people who share particular protected

characteristics.


17/137

Chapter 1

Introduction



18/137

10



Fairness is important to us all in Britain.

There are few things against which we

react more strongly than a sense of

unfairness or injustice. It is because we

believe that fairness is important that wehave put in place an infrastructure of laws

and enforcement mechanisms to defend

this principle.

These include:

• the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which

transferred into UK law the rights set out

in the European Convention on Human

Rights (ECHR), making them enforceable

by individuals in the UK courts• the Equality Act 2006, which created the

Equality and Human Rights Commission,

and

• the subsequent Equality Act 2010,

widely regarded as the strongest anti-

discrimination framework in the world.

As part of this legal framework, Is Britain

Fairer? is unique around the world as

a process for reporting on progress inimplementing equality and human rights.

By posing the question, Is Britain fairer?,

we assess whether our society is fairer today

than it was five years ago. Whatever our

strengths and weaknesses, there will always

be room for improvement as we strive to be

a society in which everyone is treated with

Is Britain Fairer? is unique

around the world asa process for reporting

on progress in implementing

equality and human rights.

dignity and respect. The first reviews we

conducted were How fair is Britain? (a review

of equality in 2010), followed by the Human

Rights Review in 2012. In 2015, Is Britain

Fairer? is the first time we have reported onprogress since previous reviews.

There are inevitably limitations to any

evidence-gathering process as substantial

as this, owing to gaps in data and difficulties

involved in collecting information, particularly

about disadvantaged and vulnerable people.

While recognising these limitations, this report

presents a rich range of evidence on how

people’s rights to fairness are being realisedin practice. We set out a clear, evidence-

based assessment of where we have made

progress, where we have fallen back, and

where we have stood still.

We believe that this report will be of value

to policy makers and influencers across all

sectors. Our purpose is to:

• report our findings

• set out the challenges for the future, and• invite those who have the statutory

responsibilities to address the issues

by identifying and implementing the

necessary solutions.

We have looked at the protections and rights

afforded by legislation in place during the

period of the review. We do not speculate

on the impact of proposed future legislative

or policy changes. Nor do we try to explainwhy there are differences in experience

and outcomes for some people who share a

characteristic protected by law, or propose

policy solutions.


19/137

11

This report is based on a substantial process of

gathering data and evidence based around 10

domains. These domains cover the following:

Chapter 1 Introduction

Domain Chapter of this report where it is coveredEducation Chapter 4 – Education and learning

Productive and valued activities Chapter 5 – Work, income and the economy

Standard of living

Chapter 6 – Health and care

Health

Life

Chapter 7 – Justice, security and the right to life

Physical security

Legal securityIndividual, family and social life Chapter 8 – The individual and society

Identity, expression and self-respect

Participation, influence and voice

Within each of these domains, there is a set of

indicators and measures that we have used in

order to assess progress. We are publishing

much more detailed information alongside this

main report, including:• ten comprehensive evidence papers,

one for each of the domains of the

measurement framework

• detailed data tables, providing the

quantitative data that we have analysed for

this work

• a context paper (commissioned from the

University of Reading) that sets out the

economic and demographic changes thatBritain has faced since 2008, and

• a detailed methodology paper and technical

appendix describing how we carried out

this review.

These are available on our website at

www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer/

evidence.

Over the coming year, we plan to publish

individual reports on:

• England, Scotland and Wales

• specific sectors, and

• the experience of people sharing certain

protected characteristics under the Equality

Act 2010 (gender, race, disability, sexual

orientation, religion or belief, transgender

people, and age).

In building the evidence for this report, we

relied on a variety of methods and sources

to establish an initial picture. We spoke to

hundreds of organisations across Great

Britain in order to test and verify this.

We relied on a mix of quantitative and

qualitative evidence:

• Quantitative. We drew from major surveys

and administrative data compiled by public

bodies. The unavoidable time lag between

gathering, analysing and checking the data

means that the core quantitative data we

use is not current. Most of it covers the

period from 2008 to 2013. This has been


http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer/evidencehttp://www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer/evidencehttp://www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer/evidence


20/137


21/137

Chapter 2

Legal framework



22/137

14



This chapter summarises the most relevant

aspects of the current equality and human

rights legal framework within Great Britain:

• the HRA and legislation across the threecountries, which incorporate into domestic

law the rights enshrined in the ECHR

• international human rights treaties signed

and ratified by the UK, and

• the Equality Act 2010.

2.1 Human rights

Human Rights Act 1998Under the HRA, it is unlawful for all public

bodies and other bodies carrying out

public functions as defined under the

Act to act in a way that is incompatible

with ECHR rights. This obligation is both

negative (that is, not to breach the rights)

and in certain circumstances positive (that

is, to take steps to guarantee the rights).

The HRA does not create any new rights

that are not in the ECHR.

There are three types of ECHR rights:

• Absolute rights – for example, the right

to life, and protection from torture and

inhuman and degrading treatment. The

State cannot breach these rights in any

circumstances.

• Limited rights – for example, the right to

liberty and security of person, and to a fair

trial. These may only be limited under thecircumstances set out in the ECHR Article

defining the right.

• Qualified rights – for example, respect for

private and family life, freedom of assembly

and association, and freedom to manifest

thoughts, conscience and religion. These

require a balance to be made between the

rights of the individual and the needs and

rights of others, including wider society

or the State. They can be interfered with

under specific circumstances set out in

each Article, which include where:

– there is a legal basis for this

interference, which people can find out

about and understand

– there is a legitimate aim for the

interference, and

– the interference is necessary in a

democratic society. There must be apressing social need for the interference


23/137

15

Chapter 2 Legal framework

and it must be proportionate (that is, it

must be no greater than is necessary to

meet this social need).

Article 14 of the ECHR provides the right

for people to be free from discrimination

in enjoying their human rights under the

Convention. However:

• Article 14 is not a free-standing right –

anyone wishing to rely on Article 14 must

establish that the matter falls within the

ambit of another Convention right, and

• discrimination does not breach another

Convention right if it can be justified as

a proportionate means of achieving alegitimate aim.

As part of the approach it takes to interpreting

the ECHR in particular cases, the European

Court of Human Rights has developed

and applied the principle of subsidiarity,

recognising that national bodies are

sometimes better placed to understand

domestic circumstances and requirements.

For this purpose it has occasionally used thedoctrine of the ‘margin of appreciation’:

• this provides some flexibility for states in

how they safeguard certain Convention

rights at a national level, and

• it must, however, be applied consistently

with a minimum level of human rights

protection provided under Convention

rights.

International human rights instruments

Relevant instruments signed and ratified by

the UK include the:

• International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights

• United Nations (UN) Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities

• UN Convention on the Rights of theChild (CRC)

• Convention on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women

• International Convention on the Elimination

of all forms of Racial Discrimination

• International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, and

• Convention against Torture.

These are not legally binding in domestic law

in the way that the ECHR is through the HRA.

Because they have not been incorporated into

domestic law, they do not create free-standing

individual rights which serve as a cause

of action in legal proceedings. They canhowever be considered by domestic courts

and the European Court of Human Rights

when interpreting other relevant applicable

rights, and the UK is under an obligation to

implement them.

Wales and Scotland

The Scotland Act 1998 stipulates that:

• a provision of an Act of the ScottishParliament is not law so far as it is

incompatible with ECHR rights, and

• a member of the Scottish Government

has no power to make any subordinate

legislation or to carry out any other act, so

far as the legislation or act is incompatible

with ECHR rights.

The Children and Young People (Scotland)

Act (2014) also places a duty on ScottishMinisters to keep under consideration the

requirements of the CRC.

The Government of Wales Act 2006

stipulates that:

• a provision of an Act of the Assembly

is outside the Assembly’s legislative

competence if it is incompatible with ECHR

rights, and

• Welsh Ministers cannot act incompatiblywith these rights.



24/137

16



The Rights of Children and Young Persons

(Wales) Measure (2011) provides a statutory

duty for Welsh Ministers to have due regard to

Part 1 of the CRC.

2.2 Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits unlawful

discrimination, harassment and

victimisation on the basis of what are

called ‘protected characteristics’ in a wide

variety of fields, including employment,

education, the exercise of public

functions, the provision of servicesand associations.

The nine ‘protected characteristics’ are:

• age

• disability

• gender reassignment

• marriage and civil partnership

• pregnancy and maternity

• race

• religion and belief

• sex

• sexual orientation

Prohibited conduct takes a number of forms,

although not all are relevant to all protected

characteristics. Prohibited conduct includes

the following:

• Direct discrimination – less favourable

treatment of a person, because of a

protected characteristic, compared with

others in the same circumstances.

• Indirect discrimination – where a policy,

practice or criterion is applied to everyone

(or would be), but in fact puts (or would put)

people sharing a protected characteristic

at a particular disadvantage when

compared with others who do not. Indirect

discrimination can be lawful if objectively

justified as a proportionate means of

achieving a legitimate aim.

• Separate forms of discrimination

specifically relating to disabled people,

pregnancy and maternity and genderreassignment.

• Harassment – unwanted conduct related

to a protected characteristic that has the

purpose or effect of violating a person’s

dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile,

degrading, humiliating or offensive

environment for that person.

• Victimisation – subjecting someone to a

detriment because they have, in good faith,carried out a protected act, such as:

– making an allegation of discrimination

– bringing proceedings under the Act

– giving evidence or information in relation

to such proceedings, or

– doing anything else in connection with

the Act.

The Equality Act 2010 permits proportionate

and lawful positive action measures whichaim to overcome disadvantage connected to a

particular protected characteristic.

The Act’s public sector equality duty requires

public authorities to have ‘due regard’ to the

need to:

• eliminate discrimination, harassment and

victimisation

• advance equality of opportunity, and

• foster good relations.

The duty consists of a general equality duty,

supported by specific duties for certain public

authorities. The specific duties are different for

England, Scotland and Wales (with England

having the least detailed duties).


25/137

Chapter 3

Context



26/137

18



We cannot look at changes in equality

and human rights in Great Britain without

understanding the context in which these

changes took place. The economic and

demographic trends over the period, andthe economic policies adopted by the UK,

Welsh and Scottish Governments, are

fundamental to this. This chapter looks

at these issues.

The most significant economic event of the

review period was the recession and the

subsequent recovery. It shaped the political

debate with stark policy choices around the

approach to ‘austerity’. It is not our place toreach a view on which of the policy responses

was most appropriate. The correct place for

that judgement to be made is at the ballot box.

However, it is important that we recognise

the policy choices that were adopted since

this sets the context in which spending

decisions (the impact of which we comment

on throughout this report) must be considered.

In 2008, the UK experienced a major anddeep economic downturn (Office for National

Statistics (ONS, 2015h)):

• The UK economy shrank by 2.3% in the

final quarter of 2008, during a recession

that lasted around a year (from the second

quarter of 2008 until the second quarter

of 2009).

• Growth resumed towards the end of 2009,

but the recovery was protracted and

interrupted by brief periods of decline in 2012.

The UK has since seen sustained growth into

2015. ONS (2014d) data indicates that the

timing of the decline and recovery was slightly

different in each of the home countries:

• Wales saw the most severe initial decline.

• Scotland went into recession slightly later.

• After the recession, England recovered

more strongly than Wales or Scotland.

The impact of this downturn was a substantial

increase in the budget deficit and public sector

debt. In 2010, the new Coalition Government5

made its policy priority the elimination of the

deficit to enable sustainable, private-sector led

growth, and set (HM Treasury, 2010):

• a fiscal mandate to achieve a balanced

(cyclically adjusted) current budget over five-

year periods – in this case, by 2015–16, and

5 The Coalition Government was composed of members of both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.


27/137

19

Chapter 3 Context

• a further target to have the public sector

net debt begin falling as a share of national

income between 2014–15 and 2015–16.

These decisions meant a funding gap thatcould only be closed through spending cuts,

taxation or growth. The UK Government

agreed to close this gap with 77% to come

from a reduction in spending (while aiming to

preserve growth-enhancing capital spending),

and 23% to come from tax increases by

2015–16 (HM Treasury, 2010). This reduction

in spending meant that the Scottish and Welsh

Governments also faced reduced resources.

To achieve its spending reduction targets,

the UK Government set itself the additional

challenge of protecting spending on health,

schools and international development. Since

health, education and social security made up

around a third of total government spending,

by giving relative protection to two of these

areas the inevitable consequence was the

need for more cuts in non-protected areas.

Spending on health was indeed protectedin real terms. The non-schools element of

the Department for Education (DfE) budget

decreased slightly in real terms, although

spending on schools remained stable over

the period (Razzu and Fernandez, 2015).

The Scottish Government and Welsh

Government budgets are tied to the level

of UK government spending by the Barnett

formula, and the UK government fiscal

contraction meant that adjustments weremade to both budgets in accordance with this

formula. Both governments also pledged to

protect key public services such as health.

An assessment of high-level spending

shows that spending on health was, indeed,

protected in Scotland and Wales (Razzu and

Fernandez, 2015).

Employment also fell in the recession but

recovered more quickly than Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) (Razzu and Fernandez, 2015).

Chapter 5 ‘Work, income and the economy’

looks at how changes in the rate and type of

employment affected different people.

This report focuses on change at national

(Great Britain) and individual country levels

(England, Scotland and Wales). However,

we recognise that there is much variation

at regional level within countries, and

between urban and rural areas. Our data

analysis has not allowed us to look at these

differences, but it is important to acknowledge

their significance.

In addition to these economic trends and

policy responses, we also need to be mindfulof demographic change over this period:

• Great Britain’s population is still ageing –

the median age in 2014 reached 40 years

old for the first time (ONS, 2015i).

• The population increased by an estimated

2.7 million between 2008 and 2014

(ONS, 2015a):

– net migration from outside the UK

accounted for around half this figure (seetable overleaf), and

– immigration was mainly for work

or study, with the average age of

immigrants on arrival being 30 years old

or under (Cooper et al., 2014).

• The proportion of the population that

identify themselves as White declined in

England and Wales from 91% in 2001 to

86% in 2011 (ONS, 2015j). In Scotland,

the figure fell from 98% to 96% (Scottish

Government, 2014e).

• More people described themselves as

having no religion (ONS, 2012; National

Records of Scotland, 2013).

• The number of marriages increased,

and the number of divorces decreased

(ONS, 2014e; National Records of

Scotland, 2013).



28/137

20



Table 1: Components of population change from 2008 to 2014

Country Estimated

population

mid-2008

Births

minus

deaths

Internal

migration

net

International

migration

net

Other Estimated

population

mid-2014Great Britain 60,044,620 1,344,427 5,325 1,315,353 46,529 62,756,254

England 51,815,853 1,298,042 –35,438 1,202,646 35,515 54,316,618

Wales 3,025,867 23,153 9,972 22,507 10,537 3,092,036

Scotland 5,202,900 23,232 30,791 90,200 477 5,347,600

Source: ONS (2015a). Note: Changes between 2008 and 2014 computed from associated dataset.

These demographic trends present significant

challenges and opportunities:• We are an ageing population, placing

greater demands on our health and care

systems.

• We are a growing population, placing

greater demands on public services and

infrastructure, while also providing an

expanding workforce to contribute to

funding these services.

• At the same time, we have had to manage

within spending constraints that have

seen real-term reductions in all but three

areas (health, schools and international

development). Indeed, even protected

areas such as health have endured

unprecedented funding pressures as

increases in demand have outstripped

real-term increases in expenditure.

The chapters that follow should be read within

this demographic and economic context.


29/137

21

Chapter 4

Education and learning



30/137

22


This chapter summarises key findings that

concern human rights and equality taken

from the ‘Education’ evidence paper, which is

available on our website. Education and learning

is a policy area that is devolved to Walesand Scotland.

This chapter discusses: educational

attainment; outcomes for particularly

vulnerable people; exclusion; bullying;

post-16 participation in education,

employment and training; further education

and lifelong learning; and higher education.

The chapter highlights a number of areas of

progress over the review period, including:

• Educational attainment in schools improved

in Great Britain.

• In England, the attainment gap between

White pupils and Pakistani/Bangladeshi

and African/Caribbean/Black pupils

narrowed.

• In England, more children in the care

system achieved at least five A*–C General

Certificates of Secondary Education

(GCSEs) (or similar).

• Educational outcomes were good in most

secure training centres and provision wasfound to be more successful than what

most of these children and young people

have experienced in the community.

• Participation in education and training rose,

leading to a fall in the percentage of 16–18

year olds not in education, employment or

training (NEET).

• The percentages of men and women with

no qualifications (of any kind) in England,

Wales and Scotland fell.

A number of serious challenges are however

also highlighted, including:

• The size of the improvement differs

for individuals with particular protected

characteristics, and attainment gaps persist.

• Gypsy and Traveller pupils continued

to have the lowest educational

attainment rates.• Across Great Britain, children from poorer

backgrounds performed less well than their

peers. This was especially true for White

pupils, particularly boys.

• The performance of children with SEN in

England and Wales improved, but the gap

between these children and those without

SEN increased. In Scotland, the attainment

gap between children with and without



31/137

23

Chapter 4 Education and learning


additional support needs (ASN: a broader

measure than SEN) narrowed, though this

will in part reflect changes in categorisation

over the period.

• In Wales, the attainment of children in thecare system was well below that of other

pupils. In Scotland, the gap narrowed but

remained large.

• Exclusion rates fell in England, Wales

and Scotland but remained high for

some groups.

• Bullying for some children with particular

characteristics – for example, disabled

children and LGB children – remaineda problem and had negative impacts on

engagement and participation in education.

• Higher percentages of disabled young

people in Britain were NEET compared

with non-disabled people, though the gap

narrowed.

• In England and Scotland, women were

more likely to have no qualifications than

men, in contrast with the situation for higher

education, where women more than closedthe gap with men.

• While more Black pupils in England went

on to study at a higher education institution,

fewer went on to higher-ranked institutions

compared with White pupils.

4.1 Educational attainment forchildren and young people

The main measures throughout this sectionare based on educational attainment at

secondary school at age 15/16:6,7

• England: the percentage of pupils in

state-funded schools achieving at least

five A*–C GCSEs (or equivalent), including

English and mathematics. For all pupils,

this rate increased from 50.7% in 2008/09

to 60.6% in 2012/13.8

• Wales: the percentage of pupils in local

authority maintained schools achievingat least five A*–C GCSEs (or equivalent),

including English or Welsh first language

and mathematics. For all pupils, this rate

increased from 47.2% in 2009 to 52.7%

in 2013.

• Scotland: the percentage of S4 pupils

achieving at least five Awards at Scottish

Credit and Qualifications Framework

(SCQF) Level 5 or better.9 For all pupils,

this rate increased from 36.1% in 2009/10

to 39.4% in 2012/13. For some protected

characteristics, educational attainment was

analysed using average tariff scores of

S4 pupils.

Within a context of improvement for all

groups, some attainment gaps persisted and

even widened, while others narrowed:

• In schools in England, girls improved ata greater rate than boys, widening the

6 Unless otherwise stated, the figures reported here, on the educational attainment of school age children andyoung people, are from analysis specifically for the Is Britain Fairer? review using pupil attainment data from theDepartment for Education, Welsh Government and Scottish Government. See data table CE1.5.7 Owing to differences in education systems, it is not possible to compare these statistics on attainment acrosscountries.8 GCSEs are the main qualifications pursued by 14-16 year olds in England and Wales, during Key Stage 4 ofthe National Curriculum. Ordinarily, pupils will sit exams at the end of their fifth year of secondary schooling(aged 15/16).9

S4 is the fourth year of secondary schooling in Scotland and the last year of compulsory schooling. Priorto changes in the Scottish curriculum (beginning in 2013/14), these pupils worked towards Standard Gradequalifications. For the purpose of comparison over time, the analysis in Is Britain Fairer? only considersattainment under this previous system.


32/137

24


attainment gap between the two at age 16.

The percentage of girls meeting the above

thresholds increased from 54.4% in 2008/09

to 65.7% in 2012/13; whereas, for boys,

the increase was from 47.1% to 55.6%.In contrast, in Wales and Scotland the

attainment gaps appeared unchanged, owing

to similar improvements by girls and boys at

age 16. Girls in Wales improved from 51.3%

in 2009 to 57% in 2013, while for boys the

increase went from 43.3% to 48.7%. On the

basis of the average tariff scores of S4 pupils,

girls improved from 189 points in 2009/10 to

200 points in 2012/13, while boys improved

from 173 points to 183 points.

• In England, by ethnicity, a notable positive

change was the decrease in the attainment

gap between White pupils (60.2% in

2012/13) and Pakistani/Bangladeshi and

African/Caribbean/Black pupils (58.1%

in 2012/13). This resulted from the latter

two groups improving at a greater rate,

closing some of the gap with White pupils.

Attainment gaps by ethnicity in Wales were

unchanged between 2009 and 2013. In

Scotland between 2009/10 and 2012/13,

there was an increase in the average tariff

scores for Chinese (plus 25 points) and

Pakistani (plus 20 points) S4 pupils, and

they remained ahead of White pupils.10

• There was some improvement by Gypsy

and Traveller children in England between

2008/09 and 2012/13. However, these

pupils continued to have the lowestattainment levels of any ethnicity, and the

gap with other White children widened as

the latter saw larger improvements.

While more children from socioeconomically

disadvantaged backgrounds met the attainment

thresholds described above, these children

continued to perform less well compared with

their peers. Indeed, it is when we includesocioeconomic measures that some of the

most striking gaps in attainment emerge:

• In England, although the gap narrowed

slightly between 2008/09 and 2012/13,

children eligible for free school meals

(FSM) were less likely to have achieved the

threshold compared with pupils not eligible

for FSM in 2012/13 (37.9% compared with

64.6%) (DfE, 2014b).11

• Chinese pupils in England were consistently

high achievers in 2012/13, regardless

of FSM eligibility: 76.8% of FSM pupils

achieved the GCSE threshold compared

with 78.2% of non-FSM pupils. For Asian

pupils, the percentages were 52.8% and

67.4%; and for Black pupils, the percentages

were 48.2% and 62.5%. The attainment gap

for Mixed pupils was somewhat wider, with

43.9% of FSM pupils and 67.5% of non-FSMpupils achieving the threshold (DfE, 2014b).

• The socioeconomic attainment gap was

greatest for White boys. In England and

Wales, by broad ethnic group, White

FSM boys continued to have the lowest

educational attainment in their respective

countries at age 16 in 2013. In 2012/13,

just 28.3% of White FSM boys achieved

the GCSE threshold in England, compared

with 59.1% of White non-FSM boys.For White FSM and non-FSM girls, the

rates were 37.1% and 69.5% respectively

(DfE, 2014b). This was also true in

10 Changes in the definition of White groups in Scotland, to conform to the population census, precludecomparisons of the rate of improvement.11 Eligibility for FSM is a common and readily available proxy for low income or disadvantage. It is, however,somewhat narrow because children lose their entitlement once their parents are eligible for working tax credits.

Royston et al. (2012) state that around 700,000 school age children in England are from poorer backgrounds butare not entitled to FSM.



33/137

25



Scotland for White Scottish children living

in the most deprived 20% of areas (Scottish

Government, 2015b).

The pupil premium (England only)

The previous government’s flagship policy

in schools to address the socioeconomic

attainment gap in England was the

introduction of the pupil premium, which

provides additional funds to schools for each

child from a disadvantaged background.

Eligibility is based on whether a pupil has

been registered for FSM at any point in the

previous six years, has been looked afterfor one day or more, or has left care through

adoption, a special guardianship order or a

child arrangements order. The pupil premium

provides more funds per pupil to primary

schools than secondary schools; and higher

amounts throughout for children in the care

system (DfE, 2015a).

Schools’ use of pupil premium funds is

being increasingly scrutinised and the

DfE implemented the Commission’s

recommendation to disaggregate take-up

by protected characteristics as part of the

monitoring process. Schools are also required

to publish full details of their pupil premium

funding, including use and impact, and the

outcomes for disadvantaged pupils are

published annually in performance tables.

Ofsted’s inspection framework now includes

consideration of the attainment and progressof disadvantaged pupils eligible for the pupil

premium (DfE, 2015b). Ofsted’s (2014) most

recent report on the pupil premium suggested

that school leaders were spending pupil

premium funding more effectively.

4.2 Vulnerable children

All three countries introduced domestic

legislation to provide greater protection

to vulnerable children, including the

Children and Families Act 2014 (England,

partially extended to Wales) and the

Education (Additional Support for

Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009.

Special educational needs (England and

Wales)

In England and Wales, a child or youngperson has SEN if he or she has learning

difficulties or disabilities that make it harder for

him or her to learn than most other children

and young people of about the same age.

While the performance of children with SEN

improved, the attainment gap between them

and children without SEN widened:

• In England, the performance of both groups

improved compared with 2008/09 – 23.4%

of children with SEN achieved five A*–CGCSEs in 2012/13, compared with 70.4%

of children without SEN. However, the gap

increased because the improvement for

children without SEN was greater than for

children with SEN.

• In Wales in 2013, children with SEN were

less likely to achieve at least five A*–C

GCSEs (or equivalent), including English

or Welsh first language and mathematics,

compared with children without SEN

(16.8% compared with 63.2%). There was a

wider gap between the two groups in 2013

compared with 2009, owing to a smaller

increase in attainment levels among

children with SEN compared with children

without SEN.


34/137

26 www.equalityhumanrights.com/IsBritainFairer

Attainment levels in Britain

have gone up:

2008/09 50.7%

2012/13 60.6%

Free school meals

Free school meals

Non free school meals

2012/13

Percentage of pupils in state-funded schools achieving at least 5

A*–C GCSEs (or equivalent), including English and mathematics

2009 47.2%

2013 52.7%

Percentage of pupils in local authority maintained schools

achieving at least 5 A*–C GCSEs (or equivalent), including

English or Welsh first language and mathematics

2009/10 36.1%

2012/13 39.4%

Percentage of S4 pupils achieving at least 5

Awards at SCQF Level 5 or better

NOTE

England

Scotland

Wales


Due to differences

in education

systems, these

statistics are not

comparable across

countries

However, there are some gaps in attainment between different groups.

Girls continue to do better than boys

Those achieving at least 5 A*–Cs in GCSEs (or equivalent),

including English or Welsh first language and mathematics

66%

56% 57%49%

2012/13 2013

Average tariff score

of S4 pupils

183200

Boys

Girls

Chinese pupils in England areconsistently high achieversPercentage of pupils in state-funded schools in

England achieving at least 5 A*–C GCSEs (or

equivalent), including English and mathematics

Asian52.8%

67.4%

Black48.2%

62.5%

Chinese

76.8%

78.2%

Mixed43.9%

67.5%

White32.7%

64.2%

The biggest gaps are among White pupilsWhite boys who get free school meals have the lowest attainment levels

Percentage of pupils in state-funded schools in England achieving at least

5 A*–C GCSEs (or equivalent), including English and mathematics

28.3% 59.1%

Boys

37.1% 69.5%

Girls


35/137

27



More and more people

in Great Britain have

university degrees

By 2013, 28% of those aged

25–64 had a degree-level

qualification compared

with 21% in 2008 28%

But there are still gaps in higher

education participation in England

Figures shown for 2012/13 data

45%of White students

are going on to

higher education compared with

51–65%of students from

ethnic minorities

15%of White students

entered a higher

education institution

in the top third

of Asian students

entered a higher

education institution in

the top third;

12% attended a

Russell Group

university

20% Whereas, despite their overall highparticipation in higher education...

13%of Black students

attended an institution

ranked in the top third;

6% attended a Russell

Group university

Girls continue to do better than boys at school and women are

now more likely than men to have a degree in Great Britain

However, gaps persist in the workplace

Women aremore likely tohave a degree28.4% of women have a

degree-level qualification

compared with 27.7% of men

But men stilloccupy moresenior positionsMen are twice as likely as women

to be a manager, director or

senior official

The gender paygap has decreased

22.5% 20%

F M M F

2008 2013

Using the evidence that we have gathered, there are areas where Britain has improved and got fairer, and areas

where it has got worse. Improvements need to be made across the board to really aim for a fairer Britain.

All references available at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/isbritainfairer/education

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/isbritainfairer/educationhttp://www.equalityhumanrights.com/isbritainfairer/education


36/137

28


While the performanceof children with SEN improved,

the attainment gap betweenthem and children withoutSEN widened.

Additional support needs (Scotland)

In Scotland, the gap narrowed between pupils

with ASN (a broader classification than SEN)

and those without:• S4 pupils with ASN had a lower average

tariff score (136 points) compared with

pupils without ASN (203 points). Compared

with 2009/10, the average tariff score

increased for both groups, but a larger

increase for pupils with ASN (plus 36 points

compared with plus 16 points) resulted in

a smaller attainment gap in Scotland in

2012/13 compared with 2009/10.

• Between 2009/10 and 2012/13, however,

improvements were made in recording,

including an expansion of the criteria for

ASN. At least some of the decrease in the

size of the gap is likely to have arisen from

a change in the composition of the ASN

and non-ASN groups.

Children in the care system

Children in the care system in England are

eligible for larger amounts of pupil premium

funds than other pupils. These children are

now supported by a ‘Virtual School Head’

(VSH) to promote their attainment in each

local authority. The VSH also manages these

children’s pupil premium funds. Children in

the care system in Scotland are classified as

having ASN.

Children in the care system in England

and Scotland have seen improvements in

attainment over the review period but their

performance remained well below that of

other pupils:12

• In England, whereas in 2008 10.2% of

children in the care system achieved at

least five A*–C GCSEs (or equivalent),

including English and mathematics, this

rose to 15.5% in 2013. This compares with

60.6% for the population as a whole.• In Wales, by the end of Key Stage 4,

just 17% of children in the care system

achieved the expected outcome of the

Level 2 threshold, including A*–C GCSE

grades in English or Welsh first language

and mathematics, in 2014. This compared

with 55% for the population as a whole.

Note that this measure is not comparable

to the statistics on GCSE attainment above

(Welsh Government, 2015a).

• In Scotland in 2010/11, the average tariff

score for school leavers who were children

in the care system was 79 points. In

2012/13 this rose to 116 points, narrowing

the attainment gap between them and

other pupils (who scored 385 and 407

points respectively). Children in the care

system did, however, tend to leave school

at a younger age.

Children and young people in custody

Regulators reported positively about the

education offered to children and young

12 Unless otherwise stated, the figures reported here, on the attainment of looked after children, are from

analysis specifically for the Is Britain Fairer? review using data from the Department for Education and ScottishGovernment. See data table CE2.3.



37/137

29



people in custody in England and Wales, and

their participation in education rose.

• In 2009, 73% of 15–18 year old males

in young offender institutions wereparticipating in education, rising to 79% in

2012/13.13 Participation in other activities

while in custody tended to be much lower

in 2012/13, ranging from 18% to 28%,

depending on the activity (employment,

vocational/skills training, offending

behaviour programmes) (Kennedy, 2013).

• HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England

and Wales (2015a) found that educational

outcomes in 2014–15 were good in most

secure training centres and that existing

provision was more successful than most

of these children had experienced in the

community.

There is no comparable data for Scotland.

4.3 Exclusions from schoolExclusion rates fell in England, Scotland

and Wales. The size of the reduction

varied greatly by protected characteristic,

and children aged 11–15, those from some

ethnic minorities and those with SEN/ASN

remained most affected by exclusion:14

• By age group, the most substantial

reduction in the exclusion rate was among

those aged 11–15. But this rate remainedfar above those for other age groups (82.8

exclusions per 1,000 pupils for pupils aged

11–15 in 2012/13, compared with 11.3 or

less for pupils of all other ages).

• The rates of exclusion cases in England for

Mixed ethnicity and African/Caribbean/Black

children were higher than for White children.

In Scotland, the exclusion rates for ethnic

minority pupils were lower than for Whitepupils. The very highest exclusion rates in

Scotland in 2010/11 were for Gypsy Travellers

and Other Travellers (57–175 exclusions per

1,000 pupils) (Scottish Government, 2012).

However, more recent publications do not

provide statistics at this level of detail.

• While the exclusion rate for children with

SEN in England fell by more than it did

for those without SEN between 2008/09

and 2012/13, the gap remained wide – in

2012/13, children with SEN continued

to be much more likely to be excluded

(116.2 compared with 17.0 exclusions per

1,000 pupils).

• The gap increased in Wales over that

period and also remained wide (in 2012/13

the exclusion rate for children with SEN

was 96.5 per 1,000 pupils, compared with

20.1 for those without).• In Scotland, the gap narrowed between

2009/10 and 2012/13 – there was a larger

decrease for children with ASN (by 84.8

per 1,000) compared with those with no

identified ASN (by 14.8 per 1,000). (As with

changes in attainment by ASN and non-

ASN pupils, some of this decrease in the

size of the gap likely reflects improvements

in recording and the expansion of the

criteria for ASN.)

13 The figures reported here, on participation in education or training by children and young people in custody, arefrom analysis specifically for the Is Britain Fairer? review using data from HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the YouthJustice Board. See data table CE2.8.

14 Unless otherwise stated, the figures reported here, on exclusions from school, are from analysis specificallyfor the Is Britain Fairer? review using data from the Department for Education, Welsh Government and ScottishGovernment. See data table CE2.10.


38/137

30


4.4 Bullying

Bullying can act as an impediment to

accessing education and have negative

effects on the private life of the victim. The

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

(2008) expressed concern that bullying

was a widespread problem in the UK and

could hinder children’s attendance at

school and their potential for successful

learning. Research by Gutman and

Vorhaus (2012) found that children who

were bullied tended to be less engaged

at primary school, with a lack of positivefriendships leading to less engagement

at secondary school. This was also found

to be associated with lower academic

achievement, both in the current year

but also in later years.

Disabled and LGB young people were

particularly affected by bullying:

• Surveys by organisations (for example,

Ditch the Label (2015) and Stonewall

(Guasp, 2012; Jones and Guasp, 2014))

and longitudinal studies (for example, the

Longitudinal Study of Young People in

England (Baker et al., 2014)) indicated

that disabled and LGB young people were

among those more likely to experience

bullying in school.

• Stonewall Scotland (2014) survey results

showed that close to nine in 10 secondary

school teachers said that pupils at theirschool were bullied, harassed or called

names for being (or being suspected of

being) LGB.

• The survey data on Scottish pupils

indicated that just over half of LGB young

people experienced bullying in school

(Stonewall Scotland, 2012).

4.5 Post-16 participation ineducation, employment ortraining

Participation in education and training

among young people improved

between 2008 and 2013. The availability

of opportunities for further learning

was generally higher for young

people, as was the availability of

financial support:

• In England, eligible young people can

receive financial support for learning

through the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund. In

Wales and Scotland, support is available

to students from low-income families

in the form of Education Maintenance

Allowances. Participation in post-16

education and training in Great Britain

rose, leading to a fall in the percentage

of 16–18 year olds who were NEET from

10% in 2008 to 8.3% in 2013.15

• In England in 2013, 18 year olds were overtwice as likely as 16 or 17 year olds to be

recorded as NEET (13.3% compared with

6.4% and 5.4% respectively). Compared

with 2008, the largest fall was for 17 year

olds. The 2013/14 academic year was the

first year of the UK Government’s raising

the participation age policy, which may

help to explain the fall in the NEET rate for

17 year olds.

• No changes were found in the percentageof 16, 17 and 18 year olds who were

NEET in Wales or Scotland between 2008

and 2013.

15 The figures reported here, on NEET rates, are from analysis specifically for the Is Britain Fairer? review using

data from the Labour Force Survey. This analysis differs from other publications and is thus not directly comparableto other published statistics. The analysis here reports rates for 16–18 year olds on the basis of actual (rather thanacademic) age, by calendar year. See data table CE1.7.



39/137

31



Participation in educationand training among

young people improved

between 2008 and 2013.

Disabled young people in 2013 were more

likely to be NEET, though the gap had

narrowed compared with 2008. In 2013:

• in Great Britain, 12.7% of disabled young

people were NEET, compared with 6.8% of

non-disabled young people, and• the percentages in England were 13.2%

and 6.6%, and in Scotland 15% and 7.8%,

for disabled and non-disabled young

people respectively. Sample sizes in

Wales were too small to make any robust

statistical judgements.

4.6 Access to further educationand lifelong learning

The proportion of adults with no

qualifications fell in Britain. Although

some gaps narrowed, women, disabled

people and some ethnic minorities were

more likely to have no qualifications:16

• In Great Britain in 2013, 33.5% of people

aged 25–64 had gained a qualification in

the last 12 months, or participated in otherformal or informal learning activities in the

last three months. The percentages of men

and women with no qualifications of any

kind in England, Wales and Scotland fell

between 2008 and 2013.

• The decrease in the percentage of women

with no qualifications since 2008 was larger

than for men in both England and Scotland,

but it remained the case that women were

more likely to have no qualifications thanmen in these two countries in 2013 (the

rates for men and women in Wales were

similar in 2013). This contrasted with higher

education qualifications, where women had

more than closed the gap with men (see

Section 4.7).

• In England, the percentage of disabled

people with no qualifications in 2013

was 20.2%, compared with 7.1% of non-

disabled people. In Wales in 2013, 21.1%

of disabled people had no qualifications,

compared with 7.8% for non-disabled

people. In Scotland in 2013, the rates were

24.3% and 7.6% respectively.

• In Great Britain, White people were less

likely to have no qualifications (9.4%) than

Pakistani/Bangladeshi people (23%) and

‘Other’ ethnic groups. (13.2%) in 2013.

For most ethnic minorities the proportionwith no qualifications was lower in 2013

than in 2008. The gap between White and

Pakistani/Bangladeshi people narrowed

over the period, with the latter seeing

a larger decrease in the percentage of

people with no qualifications.

As well as being more likely to have no

qualifications, disabled people were less likely

to have participated in learning activities andto have accessed the internet:

• Disabled people were less likely to have

participated in other formal or informal

learning activities in the last three months

(21.8% compared with 37.4% of non-

16 The figures reported here, on people with no qualifications and on people gaining a qualification or participatingin formal or informal learning, are from analysis specifically for the Is Britain Fairer? review using data from theLabour Force Survey. See data tables EE2.1 and EE3.1.


40/137

32


disabled people in Great Britain as a whole

in 2013). The gaps were relatively wider in

Wales and in Scotland, at around 21% for

disabled people and 39% for non-disabled

people respectively in both countries.• Disabled people were less likely than

non-disabled people to have accessed

the internet within the past three months

in 2013. In England and Scotland, over

60% of disabled people had accessed

the internet by this measure, compared

with almost 90% of non-disabled people.

In Wales, the figures were 47% of

disabled people compared with 86% of

non-disabled people.17

4.7 Access to higher education

The proportion of people aged 25–64 with

a degree-level qualification increased in

Britain, from 21.4% in 2008 to 28.1% in

2013,18 but there was a higher increase

among women than men:

• In 2008, men were more likely to have

a degree than women (22.3% of men

compared with 20.5% of women). By 2013,

women had overtaken men, with 27.7%

of men holding a degree compared with

28.4% of women.

All ethnicities saw an increase in the

proportion with a degree-level qualification.

Moreover, in 2012/13, more school leaversfrom ethnic minorities went on to study at

a higher education institution than White

school leavers (51–65% compared with

45% respectively). However, some ethnic

minorities were less likely than pupils from

other ethnicities to study at a higher-ranked

institution:

• Just over 13% of Black pupils, compared

with 15% of White and 19–20% of Mixed

and Asian pupils, went to a university

ranked in the top third.19

• Just 6% of Black pupils, compared with

11% of White and 12% of Mixed and Asian

pupils, went to a Russell Group university

(including Oxford/Cambridge) (DfE, 2015c).

Disabled people were less likely than those

without a disability to have a degree-level

qualification, and the gap between the two

groups widened.

According to UCAS (2014), 2014 saw the

largest recorded increase in university entry

rates among young people living in the most

disadvantaged 20% of areas, narrowing

the gap with those from more advantaged

areas. Concerns remained, however, that

higher tuition fees might curb university

participation among prospective studentsfrom disadvantaged backgrounds. There is

no similar data for Wales or Scotland to make

such comparisons for these countries.

17 The figures reported here, on internet usage, are from analysis specifically for the Is Britain Fairer? review usingdata from the ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (formerly the ONS Opinions Survey). See data table EE4.1.18 The figures reported here, on degree-level qualifications, are from analysis specifically for the Is Britain Fairer? review using data from the Labour Force Survey. See data table EE2.2.19 ‘Top third’ universities are identified as those in the top third on the basis of entry requirements (UCAS tariffscores) in 2011/12. See DfE (2015c) for further details.

EHRC IBF MainReport Acc

Documents

Transcript of EHRC IBF MainReport Acc